Arrest for Murder.
[ByTelegraph.] Dunedin, Dec. 31.
A man named William Pearce has been arrested for the murder of Matilda Hancock. The two were cohabiting together, and both were abandoned characters. The woman has been frequently convicted for drunkenness and prostitution, whilst Pearce only a few months since came out of gaol after serving eighteen months on a serious charge. The woman was stabbed on the 29th inst, and died to-day at noon, and Pearce was arrested this afternoon on the charge named. Particulars are not yet to hand.
Later. The man Pearce and the woman Hancock had been drinking together on Saturday, and had a quarrel. There is some doubt whether anyone was present when the stabbing took place. The wound is a gaping one on the left side of the body above the hip. The woman lingered in her own house till about one o'clock this morning when she died, and 8 o'clock this morning Pearce reported to the police that the woman had died suddenly during the night. The police found the body lying on a mattress, with the wound on it, and also several bruises. An inquest was held this afternoon, at which the only evidence taken was that of Pearce, who deposed to the identity of the deceased. He had known her for eleven years, and had lived with her for four months. She had a daughter seven years old, and she herself was 42. A post mortem examination showed that death resulted from the wound. The woman was the divorced wife of a man who was a well-known publican in Dunedin some years ago. -Southland Times, 1/1/1884.
Pearce is described in later newspapers as being a fish-hawker and the scene of Matilda's death a "right-of-way" between Great King and Cumberland Streets. Matilda's occupation is recorded in the Council's cemetery records as "courtesan."
The inquest on the body of Matilda alias Emily Hancock, who was stabbed in a right-of-way off Cumberland street on Saturday last, resulted yesterday in a verdict of wilful murder against William Pearce. The knife with which the deed is supposed to have been committed is missing, and one of the strongest points against the prisoner is that several witnesses speak of his anxiety to hide this instrument. Pearce was committed for trial at the forthcoming criminal sessions. -Otago Daily Times, 5/1/1884.
SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
Tuesday, January 8.
(Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)
THE CHARGE OF MURDER.
William Pearce pleaded Not guilty, on being arraigned upon a charge of having murdered one Matilda Hancock. Prisoner: Can I speak, your Honor?
His Honor: Yes. The Prisoner: Will you give me a lawyer? I have not a shilling to defend myself. I want a good lawyer.
His Honor: I think that should be allowed. Is it not usual, Mr Haggitt, in charges of murder for the Government to provide funds for counsel? Mr Haggitt: I have never known it to be done, your Honor.
His Honor: I think there is one case where the Government paid a lawyer for the defence of a prisoner. Mr Haggitt: I think not, your Honor. I don't recollect any such case.
His Honor: I think I certainly recollect. When a man accused of murder is not in a position to pay for counsel, some provision should be made for his defence by the public authority. The Registrar will make some communication to the Government and see what can be done. If nothing can be done — if Government refuse to find the necessary funds to enable the prisoner to be defended, — then all I can do is to suggest that some member of the Bar might volunteer his services.
Mr Haggitt: That is all that can ever be done. There being no funds, your Honor is not in a position to assign counsel.
His Honor: No, I am not in a position to assign counsel unless there is some fund to pay counsel out of. The Registrar mentioned that in the case of a Maori charged with murder Government had retained counsel for him.
His Honor: That was done. I don't see, if a Maori was provided with counsel by Government, why a white man charged with murder should not also be provided with counsel. I will communicate with the authorities, prisoner, and see if they are willing to provide counsel for you. If they will not, I have no power to assign you counsel; but then it may be that some member of the Bar will volunteer to defend you gratuitously. I hope that will be done.
Prisoner: Thank you, your Honor.
The case was then adjourned. -Otago Daily Times, 9/1/1884.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
SUPREME COURT, DUNEDIN. Monday, January 14, (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)
MURDER.
William Pearce was indicted for having feloniously killed and murdered Emily Hancock at Dunedin on December 81, 1883.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr D. M. Stuart.
The following jurors were sworn in: Albert Evans (foreman), William Wilson, James Farquharson, John Bowden, jun., Francis Richard Manning, James Jolly, David Leisk, William King Hawker, John Lawson, Lewis Westland, John Sharp, and John Craig.
The jurors challenged by the prisoner's counsel were: John Dryden, James Fletcher, Nicholas Moloney, William Digby Smith, William Nicholas Ball, Robert Patterson, Robert Dickie, David Alexander De Maus, William McDonald, Neil McLean, Alfred Charles Broad, and John Wedderspoon. John Vezey was ordered to stand aside by the Crown.
The Crown Solicitor (Mr Haggitt), in opening the case, said that the prisoner was by occupation a fishmonger, and lived at the time of the occurrence mentioned in the indictment in a right-of-way off Cumberland street, known as Connell's right-of-way. This right-of-way formed the back entrance to a long row of cottages, all similar in appearance, and each of which consisted of two rooms — a sitting-room or kitchen, and a bedroom. There was a porch at the back of each cottage, a small yard, a water-closet, and nothing else. The cottages were situated on section 33, block 21, Dunedin. The deceased woman, whose name was Emily Hancock, lived with the prisoner at the time of the occurrence, and had lived with him continuously for a period of three months or more immediately preceding it. The wound of which the deceased died early on the morning of the 31st December was actually inflicted some tine on Saturday, the 29th of December. The first that the jury would hear of the parties upon that day was that in the early part of it — some time before noon — the prisoner, in company with the deceased, went into the house of a Mrs Boyd, which adjoined the house which the prisoner and the deceased occupied. They went together to this house before twelve o'clock in the day, at any rate. Mrs Boyd paid the prisoner a shilling which she owed him for fish he had supplied her with on a previous occasion, and they immediately sent out for beer with this shilling. The prisoner had a share of the beer brought in, and they went away to do some work he had on hand — to cleanse a back-yard, one of the witnesses stated; having performed which operation he returned to the house, and more beer was sent for. They drank the beer, and while the prisoner, the woman, and Mrs Boyd were together, Mrs Boyd observed a man named Edwards, who had been lodging with the prisoner and the woman Hancock, go into their premises, and she mentioned the fact to the deceased and to the prisoner. Up to this time the prisoner and the deceased had apparently been on very good terms. Mrs Boyd would state that when the prisoner returned after cleansing the yard he had in his hand a shovel, which he had been using, and that he and the woman were skylarking together. The first thing approaching a misunderstanding was when Edwards was seen to go into the house. Deceased said that she had turned the man out of the house, and would not have him there. It appeared that Edwards was also connected with the fish trade. He had been a friend of the prisoner, and had for a time lodged with the prisoner and deceased until she had to turn him out. She objected to his going back to her house, and that was the first and only thing which had occurred to indicate that there had been any unpleasantness with regard to him. However, when the man was seen to go into their place they both left Mrs Boyd's place and went into their own place. Edwards was not seen to leave so far as the depositions disclose, and his own account is not a very satisfactory one. He appears to have been pretty well drunk when he went there, and so far as the depositions are concerned he does not appear to have known how long he was there or what he did. After he had gone away it would appear that the prisoner and the deceased had had some misunderstanding. What the subject of this misunderstanding was no one could tell but the prisoner himself, and so far he had not said a single word on the subject. Between four and five o'clock on the Saturday afternoon they were seen to be quarrelling in their back-yard and in the back-yard of the adjoining place. The deceased ran into Mrs Palmer's, a neighbor on the opposite side to Mrs Boyd's, and asked Mrs Palmer to allow her to lie down on her bed for a time, which Mrs Palmer consented to do. The deceased was not there many minutes before the prisoner came in, seized her roughly, and dragged her out. He got her into the yard, and then she escaped from him and ran into a water-closet on Mrs Boyd's premises. A woman named Cunningham happened to be there at the time, and prisoner tried to get into the water-closet. He was dragging the deceased roughly, and she was resisting. Cunningham interfered, and said that if prisoner would leave the deceased alone she would get her home quietly. Prisoner consenting, the deceased was conveyed home, and, when she threw herself on a mattress on the floor of her bedroom, the woman Cunningham observed that there was blood on the floor close alongside the mattress, and also on the clothes, such as they were, that the deceased had on. She did not appear to have made inquiries as to how the blood came there, and it did not appear to have attracted her attention very much at the time. This was pretty late in the afternoon — the witnesses did not agree as to the hour, some fixing it between nine and ten o'clock, and others saying that it was considerably earlier. This was all that had happened up to this time on Saturday night. Mrs Boyd was out on the Saturday evening, and she would state that when she came home between nine and ten o'clock everything was quiet on the prisoner's premises and that there was no light burning. About four o'clock, however, on the following morning, Mrs Boyd was aroused by her window being broken. She did not get up, but heard the prisoner's voice calling out to her, and what he said was this: "Did you hear that, mother? Your window has gone in." She then got up and opened the door, and prisoner asked her if she would take a cup of tea, saying that he had made some for Emily, meaning the deceased. Mrs Boyd went into the prisoner's place and saw the deceased lying upon her bed, and asked her if she was not well. Deceased said that she was not very well, and Mrs Boyd then observed that she was breathing very heavily, and that she was very sick. However, she did not make any complaint at the time, and Mrs Boyd returned to her own house. Shortly before eight o'clock that (Sunday) morning the prisoner went back again to Mrs Boyd's house and asked her to come and see Emily, who was very bad. At this time a Mrs Fiedel, a monthly nurse by profession, who had gone to stay at Mrs Boyd's house that night, was there, and when prisoner asked Mrs Boyd Mrs Fiedel volunteered to go; but prisoner objected, saying that he did not want her. Mrs Boyd, however, was not quite ready to go at the time, and Mrs Fiedel went. When Mrs Boyd went in she found Mrs Fiedel in the act of bathing a wound in the side of the deceased close down to the joint of the thigh. Now, these two witnesses from that time forward would tell their story in conjunction. Mrs Fiedel found the woman complaining of a pain in her stomach. She turned down the bed-clothes and found that deceased was dressed in a man's shirt. Her own clothes were lying underneath her, the only garment upon her being a man's shirt. Mrs Fiedel fomented the wound with water, and saw that it was about an inch in length. This witness could not tell the depth of wound, but she came to the conclusion, as did Mrs Boyd, that it had been done with a knife. She recommended the prisoner to send for a doctor to attend the woman, but he declined to do so, saying that she had been as bad before, and that she would get over it. No doctor was sent for, but these two neighbors gave the woman as much attention as they could at the time, and then left her. They saw her again in the middle of the day for a short time, but nothing particular transpired then. The next thing that happened was in the evening some time; the time was not stated. On Mrs Boyd going back to the house of her own accord she found the place in darkness. Saw the deceased, gave her some port wine, which immediately made her sick. Looking at her, she remarked to deceased that she appeared better and would be right the next morning. Mrs Boyd then left, but had hardly got to her own door before the prisoner called to her, saying "Mother, mother, come quickly, Emily is dying." Mrs Boyd returned to the house and found the deceased dying — if she was not actually dead. These were the facts so far as they appeared on the face of the depositions, and so far as the movements of the prisoner and the deceased were known from the hour where he (the Crown Solicitor) had commenced upon the Saturday morning until the time of the woman's decease. That was absolutely all the depositions disclosed as to what they did, where they were seen, and the persons in whose company they were. It amounted then shortly to this: The woman and the prisoner were apparently on good terms up to some hour after twelve o'clock on Saturday afternoon; they had been drinking slightly, but nothing to be observable upon either of them; they went into their own house in company with a man named Edwards, who stayed with them for a short time, and then went away; some short time after he had gone they appear to have quarrelled, and the next thing noticed was blood on the woman's clothes. Shortly after this the woman was said to be breathing heavily and vomiting; and later on a wound was discovered in the position indicated, and of that wound she subsequently died late on Sunday night, or about 12.15 on Monday morning. So far as was known no one else but the prisoner had been with the deceased. He was found lying on the bed with her on two occasions at least before her death, and she made no complaint with regard to having had a quarrel with him, or with regard to any ill-treatment she had been subjected to by him. He (Mr Haggitt) had stated that the prisoner was requested on more than one occasion to send for a doctor while the woman lived, but he did not do so. After she was dead he brought Dr Copland, who examined the woman and found that she was dead, and he could do nothing for her. Later on, however, the necessity arose for burying the body of the woman. Of course, no burial could take place except upon the certificate of a medical man as to the cause of death. This was the first difficulty the prisoner was met with; hence the reason for his going to Dr Copland. Dr Copland refused to give a certificate as to the cause of death unless the deceased first went to Sergeant Shirley. This was on the Monday morning. He reported to Sergeant Shirley that the deceased had died in the course of the night, and on being asked if a doctor had been attending her he replied that Dr Copland had. He said that the woman had been bad for two or three days; that she took to vomiting and died in the middle of the night; and on being asked if Dr Copland would give a certificate the prisoner said "Yes," although he had been previously told by the doctor that he would not do so. The sergeant asked him if he was quite sure the doctor would give the certificate, and he replied in the affirmative. He further said he was quite sure the doctor had been attending the woman during her sickness. The sergeant then asked the prisoner what he wanted, and he replied that he wanted the woman buried. That was the first thing that took place after the woman's death and the first appearance of the police on the scene. After this Sergeant Mulville went to the house and obtained the clothes of the deceased; and upon examination of the garments which deceased had been wearing was found a cut corresponding to the wound on the side of the woman. Drs Copland and Coughtrey subsequently performed the post mortem examination, and they would state as the result of that examination that the wound was the cause of death — that was to say, that death was occasioned by acute peritonitis, occasioned by the wound the woman had received. The next thing to which the jury's attention should be directed was this: when Detective Bain went to the place about midday on Monday he found the deceased lying on a mattress on the floor covered only with a sheet. After seeing the wound he began to search the bouse for knives, in order to find the weapon with which the wound was inflicted. He found several knives in various places on the premises; but none of these appeared to be weapons with which the wound might have been inflicted. He then asked the prisoner where his fish-knife was — a kind of sheathknife which fishmongers' would carry. The prisoner thereupon lifted a knife from the table, and said that that was the only fish-knife he had ever had, and the knife he always used for cleaning fish. Now, it would be shown that this statement was not true — that the prisoner had a fish-knife, that the knife was seen in his possession as late as the Friday before the Saturday on which the wound was inflicted on the deceased, and that the knife was taken away by the prisoner early on the Monday morning after the deceased died. One of the women who was present in the house made the remark in the presence of the prisoner that the knife ought to be put out of the way, and the prisoner thereupon asked Mrs Boyd if she would take charge of it, but she refused. Later on he asked her again, but, on her refusing, he went out, and tried to persuade another woman living in the neighborhood — a Mrs Proven — to take the knife, but she also declined; and at the time of the inquest this knife could not be found. But after the inquest took place the prisoner, while being taken to the police station by Detective Bain, said to him: "I am sorry I gave you so much trouble in looking for the knife; I threw it in the bay, I was told to do it." Now the medical testimony would show that the wound in the body of the deceased was such a wound as would be inflicted by a knife of the description called a fish-knife, and that the knife was not a new one, but had been partly worn. Subsequently to this the prisoner went on to say to Detective Bain that on the Saturday afternoon the deceased complained of pains in her stomach, and said that she wanted some beer. The fact was that at the time the woman was killed she was pregnant, and no doubt allusion was made to this. He further said that he had some beer, and then went to sleep; that when he awoke he found the deceased alongside of him, and they had some more beer; that he did not see any blood on her clothes; that he did not drag her from the watercloset; that he was not aware of anyone bringing her from the water-closet; that he never quarrelled with deceased; and that, so far as he knew, she commenced to vomit about dusk on Saturday evening and continued until her death. That was the story told by the prisoner. What he had opened to jury were the actual facts from the witness's depositions, and they would see that the prisoner's statements were at variance with the evidence. Mr Haggitt went on to say: I have opened to you facts as disclosed by the depositions, and it will be for you to say, upon the consideration of those facts, whether the prisoner is guilty of the charge made against him in this indictment, that charge being that on the 31st December he did feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought kill and murder the deceased. I have only one word to say to you in conclusion with regard to the law on the subject of homicide, and it is this: Where one person is killed by another, the law presumes (untiil the contrary is shown) that the killing is murder. The onus is thrown upon the person who kills the other to show that the act of killing was justifiable or excusable, or that it was done under such circumstances that it amounts to manslaughter only and not to murder. Now hitherto, gentlemen, as you will have gathered from what I have said, the prisoner has not attempted to account for this homicide in any other way than this: he said that the deceased had fallen upon some glass in the back yard, and in that way had received the wound of which she died. I will show to you, gentlemen, that that is an utterly impossible account of the way in which this wound was inflicted. The medical evidence will leave no doubt upon your minds that the wound could not, by any possibility, have been caused in that way, but that it must have been inflicted by a sharp knife, and that the knife was of a description known as a fish knife. It is utterly incredible that the wound could have been caused by the woman falling upon glass, but that is the story, and the only story, the prisoner has told up to the present time. I think I shall be able to show you, gentlemen, that the prisoner has stated that he himself inflicted this wound, but the very words he made use of I shall not mention just now, because the evidence is not on the depositions. Supposing, however, that should not be the case, then you will have to consider all these various stories the prisoner has told, and weigh them together, in order to see what is the nature of the crime of which the prisoner is guilty; to see whether there are circumstances which can by any possibility reduce it from the crime charged in this indictment to manslaughter. The fact of the prisoner not having given, up to the present time, any other story than the one I have mentioned does not preclude him from setting up now any story he may think fit; but of course, gentlemen, you will readily understand that any person who kills another by misadventure, or in the heat of passion, or in any way without malicious intent, would take the earliest possible opportunity of explaining how it was that the occurrence took place. That the prisoner has not done in this case, so that any story that he may tell you now will come before you tainted, as it were, with the fact that he has told untruths on various occasions with regard to this matter, and that he had on a former occasion given a different account, and an impossible account, of the way in which the wound that caused her death was inflicted on the deceased. Gentlemen, I do not think I have anything more to say to you, and I will proceed to call the witnesses, who will establish the facts I have opened.
The following witnesses gave evidence in support of the case for the Crown: — Sarah Ann Boyd, James Edwards, Anne Cunningham, Thomas Lawson, Dr Chute (who proved that the witness Palmer was unfit to attend), Ann Proven, Annie Fiedel, James Freeman, Dr Copland, Dr Coughtrey, Sergeant Shirley, Sergeant Mulville, and Detective Bain.
Mr Stuart addressed the Court shortly, arguing that the wound had been accidentally caused in a struggle, — His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that if a murder took place in a slum the evidence brought forward by the Crown must be that of inhabitants of the locality probably not bearing the best of characters. — The jury retired at 5.40 p.m. -Evening Star, 14/1/1884.
In the charge of murder against William Pearce the jury, after being locked up all night, were unable to agree, and were discharged. The prisoner will be again tried on the indictment for murder on Monday next. -Mt Ida Chronicle, 19/1/1884.
The trial of William Pearce for the murder of Emily Hancock was commenced at the Supreme Court on Monday morning. Mr Haggitt prosecuted, and Mr Stuart defended the accused. Twelve of the jurors were challenged by the prisoner, and one by the Crown. The evidence adduced was mainly a repetition of that given before the Coroner's Court; but two new witnesses wore examined, who gave evidence of admissions made by the prisoner; and Detective Bain also deposed to certain statements volunteered by the prisoner, one of which was to the effect that the prisoner had got rid of the knife the police were searching for by throwing it into the bay. The defence was that the wound which had proved fatal had been accidentally caused in a struggle. His Honor summed up adversely to the prisoner, but intimated that any recommendation to mercy would be considered by the Crown. At 6 o'clock the jury retired, and after waiting until half-past 10 for the jury and being informed that there was still no probability of an agreement, his Honor directed that the jurors should be kept together at Watson's Hotel during the night; and adjourned the Court until 10 o'clock next morning. A considerable amount of interest was taken in the case. In the evening the Court was crowded, and a considerable, number of persons were present throughout the trial. There was nothing very striking in the demeanour of the prisoner. At times he appeared to be anxious, but for the most part seemed rather indifferent. On Tuesday morning, the jury still being unable to agree, were discharged. The prisoner will be again tried on the indictment for murder on Monday next. -Otago Witness, 19/1/1884.
WILLIAM Pearce was tried before a fresh jury at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Monday last, for the murder of Emily Hancock. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty, after deliberating for an hour, recommending the prisoner to mercy. His Honor passed sentence of death, but promised to forward the recommendation to mercy to the Ministers of the Crown. Prisoner showed a stolid mood during the trial and the passing of the sentence. -Tuapeka Times, 23/1/1884.
If it were possible to blot out the record and destroy the memory of the Hancock murder we would gladly do so. A more ghastly revelation of sin and crime, of man's demoralisation and woman's degradation, than that which was disclosed in the course of the judicial inquiry has rarely stained the columns of the Press. The unsexed women — "battered drabs," as the prisoner's counsel termed them — who appeared in the witness-box, were such a libel on womanhood as might well make one feel ashamed of our boasted civilisation. That such a den of iniquity as was described should be suffered to exist in the very heart of the city, within a stones-throw of the City Council Chambers, and almost under the shadow of two churches, representing the ecclesiastical advance-guard of Scotland and Ireland, is most discreditable. The woman Hancock furnishes another name to the list of the victims of drink. Once occupying a respectable position in Dunedin, with a husband to shield her from harm, and children to love and protect, the insatiate thirst for intoxicants drove her down in the social scale till she became the debased associate, and ultimately the brutal sport, of a brutal partner, by whom she was done to death, whilst yet comparatively young. As for the man Pearce, it matters little what becomes of him. But the probability is that he will not be hanged; for whether the provocation received were of the tongue (which, contrary to his Honor Judge Williams, we hold to be greater than any that a woman's blows could give), or originated in the miserable woman's misconduct, there is nothing to show malice prepense on the part of the prisoner. That his sentence will be long and severe may be regarded as certain; but it is not a case in which the extreme penalty of the law should be inflicted. -Otago Daily Times, 23/1/1884.
We are informed that the sentence of death passed lately, at Dunedin, on the convict William Pearce, for murdering the woman with whom he was living, Matilda Hancock, has been commuted by His Excellency the Governor to penal servitude for life. -NZ Mail, 15/2/1884.
Pearce, convicted at Dunedin at the January Supreme Court sittings of the manslaughter of Matilda Hancock, was guilty of gross insubordinate conduct on board the prison hulk on Saturday afternoon. He was brought before the Mayor, as one of the Visiting Justices, who having heard the charge, ordered him to a week’s solitary confinement, in accordance with the prison regulations. Pearce will be brought before the City Police Court in the course of the week. -South Canterbury Times, 7/10/1884.
City Police Court
Breach of Prison Regulations. — William Pearce (on remand) was charged with pretending illness and refusing to work on board the prison hulk while undergoing a term of imprisonment for manslaughter. He was further charged with using threatening aud violent language to warders in charge of the Dunedin Gaol. He pleaded guilty. — The gaoler, Mr Phillips, said he did not press for a heavy sentence. When prisoner was undergoing a previous sentence they tound him rather difficult to deal with, but lately he had endeavoured to submit as well as he could to the discipline of the prison. In reply to the Bench, Mr Phillips said prisoner was serving a life sentence, which meant 24 years. — The punishment which their Worships inflicted is equal in each case to taking off 1,140 good-conduct marks, or an additional sentence of six months. -Otago Daily Times, 16/10/1884.
Thus ends - as far as I can tell - the story of William Pearce. But what of his victim, Matilda Hancock? She is described as a woman who lived the respectable life of a wife and mother, but who was dragged down by drink. Her story in the courts begins in 1866, when she is convicted of using obscene language and fined 20 shillings or 7 days' prison in default. Nearly two months later she is in court again on the same charge, the fine being doubled. Through the rest of the 1860s her name features in cases involving drunkenness and disorder, with the location of Walker street being mentioned — Walker street in Dunedin's notorious "devil's half acre" area.
MAYOR’S COURT.
This Day. (Before T. Birch, Esq., R.M., and Captain Fraser, J. P.)
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Mary Ann Hall and Alice Gadsly, old offenders, were each fined 20s, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. — Thomas Mitchell and John Page were each fined 10s, or twentyfour hours’ imprisonment. — John Smith was fined 20s, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.
VAGRANCY. William Steel was brought up, charged with being the keeper of a disorderly house, the resort of thieves and prostitutes. Evidence was given as to the general character of the house, and several previous convictions against the prisoner proved. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Matilda Hancock, an inmate of the same house, was fined L5, or three weeks’ imprisonment. William Jefferson, for being in the house at the time of the arrest of the above prisoners, and attempting to incite the mob to assault the police and rescue the prisoners, was fined 40s, or seven days’ imprisonment. Three others, charged with being also in the house on the occasion, were dismissed with a caution. -Evening Star, 27/12/1869.
Matilda Hancock's remains were buried in an unmarked, pauper's grave in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery.
No comments:
Post a Comment